Why not...certain Angles?

I've been throwing myself rather intensely into chart analysis for quite a few months now, and I've also been branching out into such areas as Synastry, Composite Charts, Transits, and Locational Astrology. I've been making it a practice to read as many websites and good books as I can, and to talk to other astrologers at whatever level as often as possible. Throughout all of this, I've noticed a lot of trends, and some of these raise questions for me. Here's one:

Why is so much emphasis placed on all four of the Angular Houses and on the Planets that may be found in them in a given chart...and yet when it comes to the Angles themselves, only two out of the four -- that would be the Ascendant and the Midheaven (MC) line -- seem to be granted serious weight in analysis? Why are those two Angles held as so important that chart-generating websites across the internet include them in aspect tables as a matter of course, and yet the other two (the Descendant and the IC) are left to scrounge for themselves in cold anonymity? If all four Angular Houses are equally extra-significant when compared to the rest of the Houses -- and I've never seen it suggested that any of Houses 1, 4, 7, or 10 are any more crucial in analysis than any of the others -- then why aren't the Descendant and the IC shown a lot more love?

Is there any basis in Traditional Astrology for this disparity in the treatment of the Angles? And does anyone out there find in practice that the Descendant and IC are truly of less importance than the Ascendant and MC?

deleted

In my opinion, it has to do with the idea that planets in the Ascendant and Midheaven have a stronger influence on the native's life and the sustenance of it than the other angles, while also being less malefic.

The Ascendant is the degree of life; the planets involved will of course try to sustain the life (for that is their agenda) unless they are impeded from doing so. From the Ascendant the health and strength of the body is known. The Midheaven is in right square to the Ascendant; this is a stronger aspect than the left square from the Imum Caelum. The MC being the part of the sky where the Sun is most elevated gives the signification of promotion, honour, and social visibility. The MC also signifies career and actions, which is the most common way to obtain livelihood to sustain one's life. At the same time, since the aspect is a square, it is more benefic than an opposition.

On the other hand, the Descendant is related to the ASC by opposition, so it is the most malefic of all the angles. Being opposite the degree of life associates it with death, as reading Firmicus would reveal. The Imum Caelum has a weaker influence on the ASC because it squares the ASC from the left.

So the difference between the first angles (AC, MC) and second angles (DC, IC), as Firmicus calls it, is either a) the aspect of the second is weaker, or b) the aspect of the second is more malefic.


This is my current understanding.

frac_ture said:

Why is so much emphasis placed on all four of the Angular Houses and on the Planets that may be found in them in a given chart...and yet when it comes to the Angles themselves, only two out of the four -- that would be the Ascendant and the Midheaven (MC) line -- seem to be granted serious weight in analysis? Why are those two Angles held as so important that chart-generating websites across the internet include them in aspect tables as a matter of course, and yet the other two (the Descendant and the IC) are left to scrounge for themselves in cold anonymity? If all four Angular Houses are equally extra-significant when compared to the rest of the Houses -- and I've never seen it suggested that any of Houses 1, 4, 7, or 10 are any more crucial in analysis than any of the others -- then why aren't the Descendant and the IC shown a lot more love?

Is there any basis in Traditional Astrology for this disparity in the treatment of the Angles? And does anyone out there find in practice that the Descendant and IC are truly of less importance than the Ascendant and MC?

Click to expand...

Yes the Descendant and the IC are less important than their counterparts. They are still more important than any of the remaining houses (though some sources put the eleventh or the ninth on the same footing as the Descendant and IC).

The Ascendant is the most important angle because the chart is based on it. The word Horoscope is derived from the Greek word Horoskopos (transliterated) which means 'The Hour Marker'. It has been the prime (but not the only) root of a chart since the beginning of the first millennium. In order to fix the Ascendant we need to know two things, the Longitude (which is associated with the MC) and the Latitude, which these days is usually taken from an Atlas (either as a computer file or an old fashioned hard backed book).

Why take the Horoskopos? It marks the point on the eastern horizon where the Sun (and hence the ecliptic) rises. It is/was the beginning of the day, and by analogy the beginning of life at that point on the earth's surface. The descendant marks the place where the Sun sets. It is the end of the day (and in some early Astrological house systems marked the end of life).

The MC marks the culmination of the Sun at that place. It is literally its highest point during the day and therefore might well be seen as the high point of life. It marks the period of greatest action, strength, vitality. Much of the meaning of the tenth house are derived from those three.

Unlike the others, the IC cannot actually be seen. It is the point where the Sun anti-culiminates and literally this is on the opposite side of the world. It marks the point where the Sun reaches its lowest and therefore can be seen as the place from which it starts its journey. The associations of the fourth with family, country, roots come from that idea.

Why do only the MC and Ascendant get shown in aspect tables? for exactly the same reason as one need only show one of the Moon's nodes. Any aspect to the Ascendant is automatically an aspect to the Descendant (using the major aspects). If a planet squares the Ascendant it squares the Descendant. If it Trines the Ascendant it Sextiles the Descendant. If it is Conjunct the Ascendant it is in opposition to the Descendant. There's no need to show those aspects. More to the point there's no need to consider both aspects in the above pairings. A sextile to the Descendant results from a Trine to the Ascendant. It's not a separate aspect with a meaning of it's own. Any meaning it has is derived from the aspect to the Ascendant. The same of course holds true for the MC and IC.

Why should we not reverse the importance? Well in a horoscopic chart the first house is the native, the person (or event or thing elected) that we are considering. The chart relates to them, not their partner or their wife.

It is possible to use different bases for the chart. The Hellenistic Astrologers drew up additional charts based on the Lot of Fortune. Quite a few modern Astrologers have tried charts based on the MC. There is nothing wrong in shifting the base. But for the horoscopic chart the Ascendant is prime and the MC comes second. The Descendant and the IC are important because they oppose the Ascendant and MC.

One last point. It's perfectly possible to construct a horoscopic chart in which the MC is not the cusp of the tenth house. Indeed, as far as we can tell, that is the original system In that same system the hour marker was also not the cusp of the first house. It was calculated to determine the rising sign, which in turn became the first house, in its entirety. Thus my Ascendant is 23 Leo but the whole of Leo would constitute my first house and using modern terminology, I'd be seen as a 'Leo', not a Libra (where my Sun was placed).

Thanks, all, for the feedback on my question. I've been processing your answers, and appreciate the food for thought...

I suppose I understand why the Ascendant gets used as the "starting point" of the chart, as we do all need to agree on something, or else we couldn't have any common frames of reference with which to carry on our discussions...and the Ascendant does correspond to the beginning of the life of the native. I get all that.

I'm still not convinced, though, that the other, lesser-referenced Angles don't deserve greater consideration. Minderwiz, I can sort of see your point about how we only show the North Node in a chart, and we can pretty easily extrapolate visually where the South Node would be, so there's no need to show the latter as part of our default settings. Where I think my own issues come in, though, is more in terms of actual substantive discussion: even if we don't capture the South Node pictorially, we still talk about the Nodes as a pair, a set, a dyad. I can't recall seeing an Astrology book or website that teaches analysis of one Node but not the other -- they're virtually always considered together, even though the South Node isn't rendered on the page.

Similarly, even if we don't show aspect lines to the Descendant or IC, I feel like we may be missing out on some valuable information by leaving these Angles out of the textual discussions in a birthchart analysis (and they do seem to get left out regularly -- not always, but very often).

Minderwiz said:

Any aspect to the Ascendant is automatically an aspect to the Descendant (using the major aspects). If a planet squares the Ascendant it squares the Descendant. If it Trines the Ascendant it Sextiles the Descendant. If it is Conjunct the Ascendant it is in opposition to the Descendant. There's no need to show those aspects. More to the point there's no need to consider both aspects in the above pairings. A sextile to the Descendant results from a Trine to the Ascendant. It's not a separate aspect with a meaning of it's own. Any meaning it has is derived from the aspect to the Ascendant. The same of course holds true for the MC and IC.

Click to expand...

I have to respectfully withhold agreement here as of yet. It seems to me that a Sextile to the Descendant only results from a Trine to the Ascendant, as much as a Trine to the Ascendant only results from a Sextile to the Descendant. They happen simultaneously at the time of birth of the native, don't they? And maybe I just need to study for a few more years, but I don't feel that mention of a Trine to the Ascendant automatically explains everything happening with the corresponding Sextile to the Descendant -- to me, they do seem like separate aspects with meanings of their own, even if those meanings are inextricably intertwined. Saying we only need to consider one seems to me like saying we can consider/discuss Yang without ever giving any thought at all to Yin. They're both operating, both important, and both worthy of examination and discussion, as I currently see it. And like I said, maybe with more experience, I'll be able to take in and explain the entire ASC/DESC axis at a glance, but until then, it seems far more helpful to look at both halves of the axis-line impact than to just look at the ASC, and stop there. And this principle may even hold more true with respect to the MC/IC axis: why examine the most public self overtly, but skip out on assessing the most private self? Isn't it beneficial to look at the chart from both of those perspectives? But again, it could be that those of you with more years of Astrology under your belts already are including such analysis kind of automatically as you go -- I can't really make assumptions about anyone here on AT, and I'm mostly talking in this thread about authors whose works I've read, and Astrology websites I frequent...

frac_ture said:

T
I have to respectfully withhold agreement here as of yet. It seems to me that a Sextile to the Descendant only results from a Trine to the Ascendant, as much as a Trine to the Ascendant only results from a Sextile to the Descendant. They happen simultaneously at the time of birth of the native, don't they? And maybe I just need to study for a few more years, but I don't feel that mention of a Trine to the Ascendant automatically explains everything happening with the corresponding Sextile to the Descendant -- to me, they do seem like separate aspects with meanings of their own, even if those meanings are inextricably intertwined. Saying we only need to consider one seems to me like saying we can consider/discuss Yang without ever giving any thought at all to Yin. They're both operating, both important, and both worthy of examination and discussion, as I currently see it. And like I said, maybe with more experience, I'll be able to take in and explain the entire ASC/DESC axis at a glance, but until then, it seems far more helpful to look at both halves of the axis-line impact than to just look at the ASC, and stop there. And this principle may even hold more true with respect to the MC/IC axis: why examine the most public self overtly, but skip out on assessing the most private self? Isn't it beneficial to look at the chart from both of those perspectives? But again, it could be that those of you with more years of Astrology under your belts already are including such analysis kind of automatically as you go -- I can't really make assumptions about anyone here on AT, and I'm mostly talking in this thread about authors whose works I've read, and Astrology websites I frequent...

Click to expand...

I was hoping that someone would challenge that point, I was being deliberately provocative. Yet there is a real point as it demands some thought about what the IC and the Descendant mean, and indeed where those meanings come from. The latter is a difficult question to answer. We do know that there were at least two systems knocking about, so to speak, at the dawn of Horoscopic Astrology. An eight house system attributed to Asclepius, and the twelve house system, which is still used today. What is clear is that the Sun and planets are seen as young and strong when they rise and old and weak when they set. The Rising Place is stronger than the Setting Place.

As I said earlier the Rising Place is associated with life and that life is the life of the native in Natal Astrology. It's her or his body, mind and spirit, their very being. The oppositie place, the Setting Place has connotations of death (though those were changed to the eighth when the two house systems merged in terms of meaning). But the Descendant still had a strong connotation of 'Not-Me', as opposed to the Ascendant's connotation of 'Me'.

In that sense the Descendant is defined in terms of 'Me'. It's everybody else - that is people who are 'Not-Me' It's easy to then derive specific and important instances of 'Not-Me' and give it to the Descendant - wife, enemy (though originally that was twelfth place), business partner, or indeed the mass of people who are 'Not Me'. Opposites are important in Horoscopic Astrology, opposite houses have a connection.

In what sense can the Descendant have a unique meaning separate from the Ascendant? 'My Wife' is defined in terms of 'Me' (and before I'm accused of sexism, in her chart I'm also defined in terms of 'Me' - 'My Husband'. My business partner's are defined in terms of 'Me' my opponent in a law suit is defined in terms of 'Me', the man who helped me across the road is defined in terms of 'Me'.

The only people defined in terms of 'Me' who aren't covered by the Descendant were initially siblings, (third house), parents (fourth house), children (fifth house) The king or Lord (tenth house) and friends who could help me (eleventh house). Later on we get the second house used for my 'second' in a duel and my supporters.

Now I can use the seventh house to learn something about my wife, indeed I can learn a lot about my wife from my chart. So you are right to raise the issue of the aspects to the Descendant (and the IC) having meaning. But whereas the first is always and only 'Me' the seventh house is not always and only 'my wife' - it's given to her because she is 'Not Me' and she shares it with virtually everybody else in the world.

So can useful information be gained by looking at these two angles - yes! Can aspects to them have separate meaning from aspects to the Ascendant and MC? Yes-But....and the But, is that those aspects only tells us something about things or people who are defined as 'opposites'. Aspects to the Descendant, tell us something about people who are 'Not Me'. Aspects to the IC tell us something about Actions which are either not mine or things that are not connected to my work, actions and social or public life. From medieval times onwards much time and effort was invested in squeezing out as much information as possible about these 'Not Me' entitities. But remember, it's My chart, not my wife's or that of the man who helped me across the road. They may be real objects with physical and cognitive processes who act independently of me (as opposed to being simply parts of my mental perceptions) but all that can be known about them is ultimately derived from Me.

In part the IC does keep something of an original meaning, as the place of anti-culmination. It's the foundation or base of the chart and therefore still retains some meanings related to foundations - family, parents, land, home, buried treasure. But a lot of this is only meaningful if you are aware of the meaning of the meaning of the MC - a visible (at least when there's a planet around' place.

The MC/IC pair also have something about them which show them as secondary to the Ascendant in terms of the topics of life. Originally, in topical analysis - that is the areas of your life - the Places or houses were whole signs, counted from the Ascending Sign. The tenth sign from the Ascendant was referred to as the MC, even if the astronomical MC was not actually in that sign. The were also referred to as Pivots, like the Ascendant and Descendant. The use of the quadrant houses, as now used by most Western Astrologers, was in other areas of Astrology - mainly the length of life calculation. So tenth house topics were not necessarily related to the Sun's highest point on the day of birth.

A bit of an input

Quote: "It seems to me that a Sextile to the Descendant only results from a Trine to the Ascendant, as much as a Trine to the Ascendant only results from a Sextile to the Descendant. They happen simultaneously at the time of birth of the native, don't they?"

I'd look at this question or statement from the point of view that it all depends upon what you are looking for from the chart. If you want to know what the Subject is thinking and doing and experiencing then you would filter everything through the Ascendant and what ever and however it aspects or interacts with the planets (natal or transiting).

If you wish to look at the chart in terms of how others may react to the Subject, then look at what aspects and relates to the Descendant. There are many ways one can look through a natal chart or another chart. Dave

dadsnook2000 said:

I'd look at this question or statement from the point of view that it all depends upon what you are looking for from the chart. If you want to know what the Subject is thinking and doing and experiencing then you would filter everything through the Ascendant and what ever and however it aspects or interacts with the planets (natal or transiting).

If you wish to look at the chart in terms of how others may react to the Subject, then look at what aspects and relates to the Descendant. There are many ways one can look through a natal chart or another chart. Dave

Click to expand...

I agree with you...up to a point. Both of us reject the Psychological approach, which says that the chart represents my perceptions of what I think is the world around us. Both of us see the chart as showing objectively independent bodies - my wife is not me, my children are not me, my friends are not me. My home and parents are not me.

If I do not have a chart for my wife - she may only know her birth date but not her time, or she may not even know where she was born, only where the birth was registered (though this is unusual) then using my chart to read information about her - and indeed making predictions for her is the only way forward. Using the seventh house of my chart, as the turned ascendant, may be (and I stress 'may') more reliable than casting a sunrise or noon chart for her. However if my wife's natal details are known, I don't think you would argue that my chart yields as much information about her as her own does. It can still yield useful information though and objective, not subjective, information at that.

That was what I was arguing, although not in a very efficient manner. I did start with that challenging and provocative statement because it's seriously worth asking whether we treat the Ascendant/Descendant axis in the same way as we treat the Nodal axis.